The Audio Science Review (ASR) approach to reviewing wines.


Imagine doing a wine review as follows - samples of wines are assessed by a reviewer who measures multiple variables including light transmission, specific gravity, residual sugar, salinity, boiling point etc.  These tests are repeated while playing test tones through the samples at different frequencies.

The results are compiled and the winner selected based on those measurements and the reviewer concludes that the other wines can't possibly be as good based on their measured results.  

At no point does the reviewer assess the bouquet of the wine nor taste it.  He relies on the science of measured results and not the decidedly unscientific subjective experience of smell and taste.

That is the ASR approach to audio - drinking Kool Aid, not wine.

toronto416

@mdalton I only responded to 1 of your 3 examples because I am very unfamiliar with the other 2.

All of the 3 mentioned dacs are exceptionally clean and have exceptional detail retrievals. Which makes no sense because Amir measured the Dave to be very poorly.

@mdalton I sense a bit of disappointment in you in that I only responded to the dac section. I’ll talk about the power conditioner part here. I’ll do you a good one.

The Puritan 156. A HIGHLY beloved product among audiophiles. How does Amir measure it? Well let’s quote Amir himself.

Conclusions
As you see, I have run a number of tests to give the PSM156 ample opportunity to show it can do something to improve audio but it can’t even move the dial one hair. There is no indication or logic that would tell us that it can make an audible improvement. Yet the company says this in the feature list of this product:

The only thing reliable about ASR is severe inconsistencies, which is exactly what good measurements avoid.

Calling ASR a cult and selling snakeoil is out of good conscience, a very accurate description.

 

@samureyex 

Think you may have intended your post referencing the Dave for someone else.  I don’t have one.

Regarding your post about the Puritan, you left out what mattered in Amir’s conclusions, which contained no inconsistencies.   Here’s the full conclusion: 

“Conclusions
As you see, I have run a number of tests to give the PSM156 ample opportunity to show it can do something to improve audio but it can't even move the dial one hair. There is no indication or logic that would tell us that it can make an audible improvement. Yet the company says this in the feature list of this product:
 

1630123343700.png



None of these things is observed in the measurements. 

The device however seems to have real filtering in there as opposed to toy implementation we see in other audio devices. So if you have audible mains related interference that is above a few hundred Hertz, then the PSM156 may have an effect.

As an audio fidelity improvement device, I can't recommend the Puritan Audio PSM156.  As a mains filter in general, it seems to be well built and does a far better job than typical consumer gear sold for this purpose.”

@oberoniaomnia

If you can not hear the difference between the Topping and the Holo May, then I am pleased for you as you do not need to spend more money to get far better sound.
I, on the other hand, think Topping sounds really harsh in the mid level, particularly with female voices. I found it grating after 20 minutes. As I listen to a lot of classical music as opposed to doof doof, there was no way that I would ever buy a Topping.
I am glad yours is still operating. You are aware of the poor quality control that even many ASR members complain about?